UC Berkeley ISSI Fellows Working Papers Title From Public Housing to Regulated Public Environments: The Redevelopment of San Francisco’s Public Housing Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3zj805cn Author Rongerude, Jane Publication Date 2007-08-07 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ISSC WORKING PAPER SERIES 2005-2006.22 From Public Housing to Regulated Public Environments: The Redevelopment of San Francisco’s Public Housing by Jane Rongerude Department of City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley August 1, 2007 Jane Rongerude Department of City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley [email protected] Contemporary approaches to concentrated poverty assume intractable ghettos and a dying urban core. In the meantime, welfare reform and gentrification have given rise to new systems of poverty management and new spatial arrangements of poverty within U.S. metropolitan areas. The public housing revitalization program known as HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) provides an opportunity to explore these developments. In the ideal, HOPE VI solves the problem of dense, isolated, crime-ridden projects that house only the most poor by replacing them with new communities that are more attractive, more integrated with their surroundings, and more mixed—both in terms of income and race. This paper argues that HOPE VI is a program of urban redevelopment and poverty management that is firmly rooted in the ideology and goals of welfare reform. Using San Francisco as a case study, it examines the institutional and spatial changes embedded in the city’s HOPE VI process. San Francisco offers a model of progressive HOPE VI, one which prioritizes resident participation, minimizes the loss of affordable housing units, and mediates public/private partnerships through the use of non- profit developers. Despite this progressive approach, the “transformation” of public housing promised by HOPE VI is not the transformation of a severely distressed property to a functional one or the transformation of an area characterized by concentrated poverty to one with a wider range of incomes. Rather, it is the transformation of public housing into a new post-welfare institution, what the author calls a regulated public environment. The Institute for the Study of Social Change (ISSC) is an Organized Research Unit of the University of California at Berkeley. The views expressed in this working paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the ISSC or the Regents of the University of California. i Introduction1 Contemporary approaches to concentrated poverty assume intractable ghettos and a dying urban core. In the meantime, welfare reform and gentrification have given rise to new systems of poverty management and new spatial arrangements of poverty within U.S. metropolitan areas. This new sorting of poor people and poor places is flexible, dynamic, and context-specific. It includes physical changes in the urban form, new networks of institutional relationships, and a reconfiguration of social formations within poor communities. It constitutes a new geography of poverty and opportunity in America’s urban areas. The public housing revitalization program known as HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) provides an opportunity to explore these developments. HOPE VI is run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It was first enacted in 1992, placing it within the larger framework of welfare reform in the U.S. Through this program, local housing authorities apply for grants to demolish and/or renovate public housing developments. The properties are rebuilt with better design and with lower concentrations of poverty; and housing programs are expanded to include social services that support resident self-sufficiency. Although HUD provides the funding, the administration of the project is local and partnerships with the private sector are an essential part of a successful renovation. In the ideal, HOPE VI solves the problem of dense, isolated, crime-ridden projects that house only the most poor by 1 This paper was made possible by the generous support of the Institute for the Study of Social Change at the University of California, Berkeley, as well as dissertation research funding from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The ideas presented here will be more thoroughly examined in a forthcoming dissertation. 2 replacing them with new communities that are more attractive, more integrated with their surroundings, and more mixed—both in terms of income and race. Somewhat surprisingly given the program’s profound physical implications, most of the scholarly literature on HOPE VI focuses exclusively on the outcomes for the public housing residents impacted by the program. Has HOPE VI improved their quality of life? Are they living in better housing? Has their family income increased? Have they been able to remain in contact with friends and family? While these questions are important, they capture very little of how HOPE VI actually transforms public housing. HOPE VI provides local public housing authorities with the resources to tear down and replace public housing structures. It makes public land available for private redevelopment. It necessitates public/private partnerships and an increased role for local governments. It encourages the privatization of public housing authority functions, such as property management. It disperses public housing residents. It prioritizes projects that replace developments for very low-income households with mixed-income developments. In this way, HOPE VI is much more about the facilitation of local housing markets, the reform of public sector institutions, and the spatial management of poverty than it is about physical improvement of public housing communities or the social improvement of public housing residents. In fact, this paper argues that HOPE VI is not a housing program at all. Rather, it is a program of urban redevelopment and poverty management that is firmly rooted in the ideology and goals of welfare reform. Using San Francisco as a case study, I examine the institutional and spatial changes embedded in the HOPE VI process. I suggest that the “transformation” of public housing promised by HOPE VI is not the transformation of a severely distressed property to a functional one or the transformation of an area characterized by concentrated poverty to one with 3 a wider range of incomes. Rather, it is the transformation of a public housing to a new type of post welfare institution: what I call a regulated public environment. Regulated public environments are real world places where poverty is both experienced and contained. They are quasi-private spaces, where private partners distribute and maintain resources supplied by the public sector. They shape the material conditions and opportunities available for recipients, but in exchange set specific behavioral expectations that reflect a larger set of public norms. They occupy a spatial distribution that responds to the needs of land markets within a specific urban context. While one can identify numerous types of places where poverty flourishes or where a poor public needs assistance, regulated public environments receive their distinct characteristics through their relationship with the current system of poverty management. “Regulation” speaks to the political, institutional, and economic context. “Public” includes both the sponsors and the intended beneficiaries of the project. It addresses the questions of who occupies this space, what interest it serves, and who has agency to create change. It connects these efforts to the work of the state. “Environment” combines regulation and public within a particular place and time, resulting in a locally relevant spatial logic. This paper has three parts. First, I begin with a brief overview of the public housing system in the U.S. and the HOPE VI program. Next, I present the San Francisco case study and describe the San Francisco model of progressive HOPE VI, a model which prioritizes resident participation, minimizes the loss of affordable housing units, and mediates public/private partnerships through the use of non-profit developers. Finally, I describe the city’s five HOPE VI projects and suggest a framework for research that bypasses program goals of improved structures and resident self sufficiency, and instead emphasizes the spatial management of poverty and the reform of public sector institutions. I suggest that research will show that even 4 with the city’s progressive approach, HOPE VI is transforming San Francisco’s public housing into regulated public environments. An Overview of U.S. Public Housing and HOPE VI Public housing authorities have a unique status as part local, part federal agencies, an unhappy mix of federal regulation and local practice. They are chartered through the states. They are governed by locally appointed commissions, but they receive federal funds and are bound to federal regulation and oversight. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides federal aid to local housing agencies which in turn manage housing for low- income residents at rents set at 30 percent of the household income. HUD furnishes technical and professional assistance in planning, developing and managing these developments. Within this framework, each local public housing authority responds